In re the Claim of Seely

263 A.D.2d 650, 692 N.Y.S.2d 828, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7859
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 8, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 263 A.D.2d 650 (In re the Claim of Seely) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re the Claim of Seely, 263 A.D.2d 650, 692 N.Y.S.2d 828, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7859 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 2, 1998, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from her employment as a full-time charge nurse in a nursing home after she engaged in a nonemergency personal telephone call lasting in excess of 30 minutes while she was on duty dispensing medication in violation of the employer’s policy. Inasmuch as claimant previously had received verbal and written warnings regarding her failure to comply with this policy, we find that substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s ruling that claimant lost her employment under disqualifying circumstances. It is well settled that employee behavior that is detrimental to an employer’s interest and persists despite repeated warnings can be construed as disqualifying miscon[651]*651duct (see, Matter of Depena [Commissioner of Labor], 249 AD2d 611, 611-612). To the extent that claimant asserts that the telephone call in question constituted an emergency call and, hence, did not violate the employer’s policy, such assertion merely raised an issue of credibility for resolution by the Board (see, Matter of Boyle [Sweeney], 247 AD2d 809). Claimant’s remaining arguments have been examined and found to be unpersuasive.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re the Claim of Mosher
41 A.D.3d 1005 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
In re the Claim of Oddo
32 A.D.3d 1061 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
In re the Claim of Rivera
294 A.D.2d 635 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
In re the Claim of Dowe
272 A.D.2d 711 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Lemons
270 A.D.2d 559 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Prairie
265 A.D.2d 794 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
263 A.D.2d 650, 692 N.Y.S.2d 828, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-seely-nyappdiv-1999.